
Alex, I’ll take Presidential Ass Covering for $800…
Prof had a thought this morning that I think really needs to be said up front: I’m no longer going to call it "unitary executive theory." For this President, it is more accurate to say "unilateral executive."
Which takes us to today’s testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — and his statement that it was George Bush himself who gave the order to kill the internal DoJ probe into the NSA domestic spying.
The department’s Office of Professional Responsibility announced earlier this year it could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency intercepts some telephone calls and e-mail without court approval.
At the time, the office said it could not obtain security clearance to examine the classified program.
Under sharp questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Gonzales said that the president would not grant the access needed to allow the probe to move forward.
“It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?” asked Specter, R-Pa., referring to the Office of Professional Responsibility.
“The president of the United States makes the decision,” Gonzales told the committee hearing, during which he was strongly criticized on a range of national security issues by Specter and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the panel’s senior Democrat.
Let me say that again: the President himself refused to give the DoJ attorneys clearance to continue their investigation, thus killing any look at the scope or the legality of his Administration’s actions in spying on American phone calls, e-mails or other communications without a warrant and without going to FISA for approval as required by law.
Jane covered this in May:
Much as I have been enjoying myself this evening watching the latest installment of the current left/right blogger food fight (here and esp. here for history), it appears play time is over. The Bush Administration has killed the Justice Department’s investigation into its illegal NSA wiretaps by refusing to grant the attorneys security clearance:
The inquiry headed by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers’ role in the program.“We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program,” OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey.It’s right in line with what they did last week — finally agreeing to Nancy Pelosi’s request to draw up a list of the members of Congress who were briefed on the program, and then classifying it so she couldn’t see it. It was the childish move of a petulant, power-mad emotional 8 year-old.
And now we know that the order to deny security clearance to the Justice Department attorneys for clearances came from George Bush. Just what is the President so afraid that the DoJ attorneys will find out?
Personally, I’m still waiting for some truth on the whole subject. As I wrote back in May as well:
The FISA laws were written for a reason — and the prohibitions on the NSA doing any domestic spying have been honored for years because this nation of ours valued our system of laws and our commitment to liberty. That George Bush and his malignant band of cronies have just shoved the FISA laws, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights to the side like so much trash is appalling enough. The fact that the Republicans in Congress have allowed them to do so — by politicizing the Intelligence Committees in both houses and refusing to do the essential oversight hearings that might have actually raised appropriate questions on this illegality; by abdicating their oversight responsiblities as required by their oath to protect the Constitution and uphold our system of checks and balances; by essentially making their own jobs obsolete because they have functioned as nothing more than a rubber stamp for every Bush Administration program that has come down the pike…well, it’s unforgiveable.
Whatever threats have been made to ensure their complicity — either that Rove will turn off the donor tap or something else beyond that — Republicans run Congress and it is high time they started acting like a separate branch of government. Being too weak to hold oversight hearings, and too accommodating to ask the tough questions or issue subpoenas or even put the Attorney General under oath to answer questions is not good enough. Either do your jobs, or stop taking my tax dollars as part of your paychecks — because you sure as hell aren’t earning your salaries.
I expect better. So did our Founders. Shame on them — it’s time for some redemption, though, and some hearings which demand honest and thorough answers. The American public deserves nothing less. It is high time for some truth.
In the same time period, Glenn really hit the nail on the head in terms of the illegal NSA domestic spying — you know, the spying that the President does not want to be investigated by the Department of Justice:
That has all changed. We now learn that when Americans call their Aunt Millie, or their girlfriend, or their psychiatrist, or their drug counselor, or their priest or rabbi, or their lawyer, or anyone and everyone else, the Government is very interested. In fact, they are so interested that they make note of it and keep it forever, so that at any time, anyone in the Government can look at a record of every single person whom every single American ever called or from whom they received a call. It doesn’t take a professional privacy advocate to find that creepy, invasive, dangerous and un-American….One of the disturbing aspects of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program was that it was seen by many intelligence professionals as a radical departure from the agency’s tradition of not turning its spying capabilities on the American public domestically. The program disclosed yesterday decimates that tradition by many magnitudes. This is a program where the NSA is collecting data on the exclusively domestic communications of Americans, communicating with one another, on U.S. soil — exactly what the NSA was supposed to never do.
Still waiting on those answers. Jack Cafferty might want to re-visit his high hopes for Arlen Specter’s ability to get them. I’m just saying…
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Can some one explain to me how come this is all OK? Now Bush can stop his own investigation because he is the decider and Congress does not question it either.
WTF is wrong?
Christy,
What is wrong with Gonzales, that he can’t understand how extra-legal the whole thing is?
No matter what his personal agenda, it just doesn’t fit within the law.
Hey, remember the 1990s when The Cons and their tame media lackeys were all over then-AG Janet Reno’s ass for her being “too close” to Clinton?
Where are they, now that Abu Gonzales, Bush’s own effing private attorney, is AG?
Our government is broken. Thanks for nothing, Republicans.
Congress isn’t being informed. Everything is classified, so few get to see it. The people that know about it are on board themselves.
Once this is all over (the BushCo coup I mean), we need to empower the Congress to control the classification of info and security clearances, and dramatically weaken our spook agencies.
Relax — it’s not like the guy got a blowjob or anything important like that. The Republic is safe!
This virtually ranks with Nixon’s infamous Saturday Night Massacre.
OT, anyone remember the also infamous judge involved with that, who almost go onto the Supreme court?
The thing that really got to me the other day and I can’t remember where the citation was, is that presumably it is the FISA court that is supposed to rule as to whether or not the wiretapping is legal and that the decision that the FISA court comes to CAN BE KEPT SECRET! So we’ll never know anything.
How can this be?
Steve 7
I do believe it was Bork.
SteveAudio – that would be the infamous Mr. Bork.
fwiw — FITZY
Rev Deb:
Yet, that’s the bastard.
Leslie in CA:
Also correct.
Once again, as it always does, Bushco has “cut and run” from any review of the legality of its warrantless spying program by anyone (e.g., the federal courts, the OPR) outside and independent of its own Cargo Cult of lawyers beholden to the Eavesdropper-in-Chief.
Color me surprised!
Me!
You!
Us!
Can some one explain to me how come this is all OK? Now Bush can stop his own investigation because he is the decider and Congress does not question it either.
WTF is wrong?
As Dean said recently, our country is a proto-fascist state.
Hmmmm, patterns. One’s mind immediately turns to what Bushie may have ordered Fitzgerald to stop, as well.
And OT, because it’s a reference to the current Middle East situation. But then again, patterns:
Josh Marshall via Kurtz:
Could it be this simple? Could all the root cause of the cowboy bullying and posturing and bravado and big-hat talk and nicknames and “manly” colorful language and power-grabbing and rushes to war and the walk-on-the-wild-side life history and the whole dang lot of it come down to the very simple fact that Dubya was totally emasculated as a kid and can’t get it up…
Shorter version, he’s a little prick. Literally and metaphorically. And the low-down tactics from the down-low gang aren’t enough to satisfy any of ‘em. So he and the rest of his posse look for their manhood by wreaking havoc on the world. Because they can. Spread the Viagra, Rush. The rest of us need the respite.
And sidebar, isn’t it interesting how when Tony Snowjob responds to questions he refers to “The President” instead of “President Bush.” Nice ambiguity for the Cheney presidency. Snark concluded, now back to your regularly proceeding comments…
neon,
That would be John Dean, former Reagan staffer. Just want that to be clear.
Unconscionable…
Hey *ilson, saw a bumper sticker this morning: “My pitbull is smarter than your honor student.” (And underneath that, “Adopt a pitbull.”)
Prairie Sunshine at 17 – yes. Completely consistent with this pattern of behavior, isn’t it?
Are there ANY “moderates” among the House GOP beyond Shays? I’m not sure the beginning of the impeachment process can wait for next spring, but there’ll have to be some goopers on board.
Have they stopped thinking of themselves as Americans? Lost all their red-white-&-blue DNA? Then what must we call them instead — “Hezbollah[Party of God]-West”?
Christy,
nice work as usual.
Slightly OT: I do take issue with your mostly positive characterization of yesterday’s NPR piece on the Abu/Snarlin’ Arlen relationship. For me, it pretty much epitomized everything that the media has been doing so poorly: an emphasis on “impressions” rather than facts, and on personalities as opposed to what those personalities are ACTUALLY DOING.
And of course, only the most off-handed of references to the sheer gravity of the constitutional issues at stake here (to me that was a particular waste of Bruce Fein’s participation–his insights here could have been very informative, but his quotes were confined to the touchy-feely regime instead of the serious issues).
A minor quibble. Carry on, Firedogs!!
OT–Condi has no immediate plans to go to the ME, she just had a mini presser on teevee.
Maybe she could send her oil tanker to the area to evacuate the Americans she is supposed to protect, instead.
http://www.bartcop.com/condi_tanker.jpg
reposted from EPUville, whereit was OT last thread:
So the headline from Gonzo’s hearing is:
“Bush Obstructed Justice, Attorney General Says”
Isn’t the next logical headline:
“Congress Begins Impeachment Hearings”
I imagine Gonzo may have to get back to us on that. He has more to get back to than Judith Miller at the Original Mattress Factory.
Hi there, noen.
This goes exactly to the point Mary has made many times on these threads, you are not allowed to use the classification/declassifiaction power for political purposes or to protect self from embarasment.
Mary has posited that illegal classification=no classififcation.
The question for me is whether the “no classification” status would kick in ab initio (from the beginning) in which case whistles could be blown left and right; oe whether the no legal classification status would have to be established in court first.
My fear is that it is the latter, b/c you would need some process to weed out the legitmate from illegitemat classified material.
I’m hoping this will be on cspan 1 or 2. I like to watch faces as they are lying. Trouble w/cspan schedule is that it’s easy to miss the updates.
I shant say a word…
lhp had this link – Jane Harmon on NSA and Arlen’s FISA patch-job:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpo…..ost/025231
DeWine was pushing Gonzo about ‘Something’s broke here. Either ask for more resoures, staffing, money or let’s change the FISA law.” (basically volunteering to hand shred the 4th Amendment.)
—–
I was ornery here Sunday AM becuase the poodle across the pond was given a ‘pass’ on his own fund raising scandal: Will he fall? Not based on this alone.” There is literally NO SUCH THING AS A SMOKING GUN.
Don’t hold your breaths on this idea of impeachment based on this, folks. It won’t see the weekend news cycle. (that’ my take. I hope I’m wrong.) RawStory already has the vid via youtube, so…viral marketing, and all that…)
He’s not only DesWine; he’s in got problems back home:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljou…..es_in.html
“Let me say that again: the President himself refused to give the DoJ attorneys clearance to continue their investigation…”
Christy – is it Executive Order 13282 (that’s what I remember) that Mr. Bush (or is it actually the Vice President?) is invoking to forestall this particular investigation? Does his authority stem instead from some provision in Title 3 of the United States Code? Should we look elsewhere to find a rationale for the President’s actions?
lhp, could you have another run at that 3rd graf, please — I’m not following it yet, and I really want to.
OT – Lieberman Files:
Here’s Connecticut Bob’s response to an undecided Democrat in CT who wanted to know where she could meet Lieberman in person to ask him questions and get to know his positions on the issues.
The bottom line was that there was literally NO way for Bob to figure out where to direct this undecided voter because Lieberman is running a stealth campaign with no announced public events whatsoever. Let me repeat: Lieberman is running a campaign that has zero announced public events. The public literally cannot find him. Lieberman is literally hiding from the people who he is supposed to represent. Lamont’s people need to talk about this more and perhaps bring it up in ads.
Anyway, here’s Bob’s response:
“If you want to see Joe Lieberman, you might get lucky and catch a few seconds of him on the TV news. Then go hear Ned Lamont speak live, and personally ask him about the issues.”
“Then decide who you feel would better represent you, and VOTE on August 8th.”
Jeebus.
Seems like they sink to a new low everyday.
Complete disregard for everything we stand for.
Osama must be laughing his despicable ass off – this is what he wanted all along.
Just think of all the shit they’re doing that we don’t know about.
Thats it….the Terrorists have won.
Democracy is Dead!
Do not think of the Neo-Cons as incompetent, they are getting done exactly what they set out to do.
Call me stupid & naive, but
If the Republicans had any pride, dignity, or sense of shame left, they themselves should call for impeachment.
This administration is systematically working to destroy everything our country stands for.
Fan out, firepups, and ask any republicans you meet, especially those in or aspiring to elected office.
HAD ENOUGH?!
Parie Sunshine at 17
Bush did not order the OPI to stop the investigation. He refused to declassify the documents they need to read in order to actually investigate.
Remember I said in previous threads, when yo are doing public corruption work you spend more hours of you day combatting those who try to take away the tools you need to do you job than you actually spend doing the job itself?
This is what I meant.
Bush can’t order Fitz not to do his job, and if he tried to, the Fitz I know would never take that lying down.
No, they NEVER tell you to you face not to do your very best. They just through up bigger and bigger roadblocks untill youu are exhausted or each a dead end and can’t go any further.
The OPI folks hit a deadend and sent a very unusual and strong letter, WHICH WAS MADE PUBLIC, also very unusual saying they could not do their investigation without the clearances.
In Fitz’s case, they have tried to exhaust and intimidate him, the thing is, unless they literally work him into an early grave, it won’t work. I don’t think he knows how to give up and quit when he knows he is right.
Right, tommy. Remember last week (?) when we were wondering whether the Wurlitzer was blasting NYT especially loudly to warn Pinch ‘n’ Bill off whatever the next big story might be? That theory COULD still be alive . . .
OT
Gay marriage ban amendment goes down. Great speech from Lincoln Davis, (D) TN about saving marriage—outlaw divorce, child abuse, adultery, etc.,
Does anyone really expect Senator Specter to question or allow questioning of a Republican administration official that would make certain an already increasingly likely relinquishing of the congressional majority and also incidentally his chairpersonship? When was the last time you saw such integrity on the Potomac?
Sure, he may be genuinely affronted by the shameless power grap of the administration, but don’t think for a moment that he doesn’t know which way the political wind is blowing. Even if he were thoroughly convinced that the Administration was on the brink of completely foundering, how could he possibly not tie their fate to his own? We’ll see. He did place Gonzalez under oath.
does anyone see it comming?
we are there…if all of these things came out all at once there is no way any American would accept what has happened
however we are given a bit at a time and the masses accept it
I remember when i was young there was something called “the punk test”
you rubbed your arm for hours untill the skin wore off and you were left with a permanet scar that would not heal
a person could never allow that to happen to himself all at once, it had to come over a period of time.
in reality anyone that passed “the punk test” actually failed the test, they were the punks
that’s what’s happening to this country
we have a president that personally stopped the investigation into whether or not he committed crimes against this nation and her constitution
and nothing will be done about this
we have passed “the punk test” and we are punks
Bush will do as he pleases, as long as Congress remains GOP controlled. The up-coming elections are absolutely crucial to stopping this lunatic president, Rove and the insane neo-cons from achieving their diabolical and utterly sinister goals of a single-party America and world dominance far into the future.
SteveAudio,
Leslie got onto Bork right away. But I’m intrigued. I remember the Saturday Night Massacre well. At the time I was News Director of KRAB-FM in Seattle, and we talked about it and interviewed some local legal experts.
In the summer of 1972, Nixon asked AG Richardson to fire special prosecutor Cox. Richardson refused, Nixon asked deputy AG Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, and he refused. He asked Soliciter General Robert Bork to fire Cox and he did it.
Bork was later famous for not getting onto the supreme court because of resistance from the senate. That was in 1987 – fifteen years after the SNM.
I remember the term “Borking” or a “Bork” referring to somebody who would mindlessly execute an order from the boss which was illegal or undignified. It meant that it the news business from ‘72 until…?
But, now, wikipedia defines the verb “bork” as:
“Borking”—in American politics, to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background, political views and judicial philosophy. Named after Robert Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated in such a way.
Any pups out there remember “borking” having had the earlier definition? Am I getting too old to trust my memory on this stuff?
Just got into work and not caught up, but one really important issue, IMO, is the nature of the investigation that was halted.
It wasn’t an investigation into the program per se at all. It was an investigation into whether or not the attorneys involved had violated their professional ethics and responsiblities.
It’s hard to say which aspect is more disturbing. The first aspect is that Congress, in establishing and funding FISA revisions as a part of the Patriot Act, set up an IG to investigate and report specifically on Patriot Act (which at that point included FISA changes) violations. Glenn Fine et al in the IGs office (that is the office that is supposed to respond to Congress AND to DOJ – ha) received a request from several members of Congress to have the Congressionally appointed and mandated IG for the Patriot Act investigate, or to have IGs for DOD, NSA, etc. investigate, and got turned down on ALL those fronts bc “we can’t investigate the wrongdoing if it was done by the AG or President.”
The second disturbing aspect is that the ONLY thing that was offered was an ethics inquiry and even THAT was quashed.
I can see the meeting now:
Bush: We can’t let them investigate this, can we?
Gonzo: It would not be a good idea sir.
Bush: Stop it.
Gonzo: Yes, sir.
——
As opposed to:
Bush: What happens now?
Gonzo: If the investigaiton goes forward, we’re likely to be found on questionable legal footing.
Bush: Can’t we stop it?
Gonzo: I wouldn’t recommend that action, sir.
—-
LINCOLN DAVIS!!! Beautiful, RevDeb — thanks so much!
Looks like he managed to keep a straight face and everything.
Bush will do as he pleases, as long as Congress remains GOP controlled. The up-coming elections are absolutely crucial to stopping this lunatic president,
rove is too certain the democrats will not win a majority
just as certain as bush winning florida when we know he did not
I’m sorry, if we don’t do something about the election fraud that is CERTAIN to come, we will NOT win a majority and all will be lost forever
OT – this bit at Newsweek / msnbc.com seems newsworthy:
Is there a prize for having the most EPU’d posts?
From last thread:
So, was there a UN resolution on a ceasefire that we vetoed?
I’m pretty sure I saw Ms. Rice come out against one on Meet the Press.
Anybody?
OK lotus
There is a concept in law that something can be “void ab initio” that is void from the beginning. If the Pres. abuses the classification power, Mary has asserted 9and I think she is right) that the document so “classified” is not really classified at all.
The question is, is the classification itself void ab initio? If it is, then someone who wants to blow the whistle could not be guilty of violating any secrecy laws, because the thing was never secret in the first place.
But, if like a contract with a minor child, the classification is only void once a court declares it to be void, the would be whistleblower has no greater comfort or encouragement to come forward today, as yesterday.
I don’t think it can be void ab initio because you need some mechanism to seperate the genuinely classfied documents (of which there must be many) from the documents illegally marked as classified.
I always thought that was what the thratening Op Ed Porter Goss wrote in the NYTimes was meant to convey. He was trying to intimidate would be whistleblowers by suggesting that even if they were untimately proven right, that a document was falsely classified, they would still be in violation of secrecy laws and subject to imprisonment, because the classification would not be void at they time they revealed the secret.
I was quite angry at ole’ parter there at the time
OK, it’s now hit the Reuters wire:
RJRoss #4, don’t forget to thank Nader. Does he still believe that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans?
lhp — From everything I’ve seen about Fitz, I absolutely agree with your observations. I’m seeing the pattern in the gropinator-in-chief–thinking he has shut down Fitz [or at least thought, at the time he made that comment…].
All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Can’t remember the attribution on that, but I take large comfort that there are good men and women doing something. And that will ultimately prevail.
And Adie, I agree. ’bout time the Republicans feel more heat on why they are standing by while BushCo dismantles the government.
Small stones….large boulders that take some extra chipping away at…we’ve our pattern, too.
me to me
speak for yourself
me to me-
Agree with you. Given the polling numbers, the Repubs are just too smug. Clean elections are our only hope.
little dog:
UNITED NATIONS, July 14:The United States on Thursday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution put forward by Qatar on behalf of Arab states that would have condemned Israel’s two-week military incursion into Gaza.
and
Jul. 18, 2006. 01:00 AM
UNITED NATIONS—As Lebanese and Israeli civilians continued to die in attacks by Israeli forces and Hezbollah militants, the United Nations Security Council put plans for a Mideast ceasefire resolution on hold.
Thanks for the clarification, lhp — now I gotcha.
so what’s the US Code number for “Obstruction Of Justice” ???
we got a textbook case here
Angie 56
Thanks for finding those UN resolutions.
So Snowjob is technically right, dammit.
RevDeb — time to introduce a new tag? The Radical Bush Regime…do the scaredy-pants traditional Republicans need some kind of cover to separate out their image from RBR?
The Republican side of the Gang of 14, and J-Lie and what’s left of mainstream Republicans should be asked at every opportunity–”in light of [Gonzales’ revelations about DOJ investigation of NSA stopped by Bush himself, Plamegate led from the very top, the President at an official international conference groping the throat of another world leader, –you fill in the blank– ] why do you still support the Radical Bush Regime?”
so what’s the US Code number for “Obstruction Of Justice” ???
we got a textbook case here
when the president does it that means it’s not obstruction
you should know that
“Please Tell Me When
We’ll Be Rid Of These Men”
“The Lie So Big It Makes You Numb”
Frank Zappa, where are you when we need you?
By way of Raw Story (I don’t think that I have seen this story mentioned on today’s threads): http://www.wwd.com/article/print/107729
lhp (and Mary)
This question of improper classification to hide wrongdoing is a really critical one. To me, it is like the real value of signing statements, but perhaps more pernicious — let me try to explain what I am barely thinking here….
Outside of Yoo and Scalia, no one takes the idea that signing statements are actually legally binding in the way laws passed by congress are. What they are, in the rational world, is an explanation of how this administration will act on the law. For example, if Congress enacted a law that in part said, “Possession of aspirin will be a federal crime punishable by twenty yars in prison, minimum.” I believe the president could say, “I am signing this huge law, because most of it is very good, but I find the aspirin section to be wholly inappropriate and I will not spend any time investigating or litigating the possession of aspirin.” This does not change the law, just indicates how resources will be applied in a positive fashion. Of course, the next administration could actively pursue aspirin possessors because the law passed by Congress was still valid.
OK, now to classification. I think that the executive has the right to classify information, but people have the right to challenge that process and to seek court reversal of classification determinations. So, to answer LHP’s paragraph three, I think a classification in parctice is appropriate until a Court determines that it was either 1) done inappropriately or 2) done for illegal purposes.
If a court determines some stuff is classified improperly, then the court would have to next decide whether it should be ordered declassified, or whether it should continue to be classified regardless of its original improper classification procedure.
If it is the second reason (illegal purpose), a court might still determine that the information should remain classified, but I think the burden would be a heavy one on the Governement to make the case. If the Court ordered declassification under the second theory, then the original classification ought to be void (that is, unclassified ab initio).
OK, how do these go together? Well, classification for improper reasons is similar to an executive statement of how its resources should be used (that is, lots of stuff should be secret so th eexecutive faces no criticism). However, unlike signing statements, classification impacts the wheole of the governemnet — every brranch not just th eexecutive — and implicates citizen’s right under the first to petition the government and seek redress. Perhaps first amendment violations there as well.
The pernicious aspect comes in when no one can get to the question of whether information was improperly/illegally classified in the first place. This is happening in the NSA civil suits and to a lesser degree we saw some discussion of this in th ePlame civil suit trot-out.
The tactic being developed to counter this double bind is the one suggested in th ePlame case and now being deployed in the Detroit and New York NSA cases: Under no theory can the information at issue be deemed a national security secret because it implicates illegal conduct. In other words, no illegal activity by the executive can be a national secret because it is against the law and that can’t be hidden by laws. Oddly ebnough, we have Rhenquist to thank for fully developing this theory in the fourth amendment context when he urged the position that “one cannot have a privacy interest in contraband.”
So, rambling, I know, but I wanted to get some of this out there for comments….
Hi Lotus
“That would be John Dean, former Reagan staffer. Just want that to be clear.”
No, that would be John W Dean when he was on with John Stewart promoting his book, “Conservative without Conscience”.
Crooks and Liars has the video.
angie at 24:
OT–Condi has no immediate plans to go to the ME, she just had a mini presser on teevee.
Guess that shoe shopping is taking a lot longer than expected. Decisions, decisions…
PeteCo 62,
So true, so true.
ain’t no real elections no more. sorry to say, the fascisti have sewn it all up good. only something much more dramatic than “quaint” nonexistent electoral process will dislodge this cancer.
hey, “me to me” at 61
yeah, how did that theory work out for Richard Milhouse Nixon ???
first as tragedy, then as farce
that about sums it up
hey, “me to me” at 61
yeah, how did that theory work out for Richard Milhouse Nixon ???
first as tragedy, then as farce
that about sums it up
at the time we had some people in government with intgrety
it was the republicans after all that marched into his office and force resignation
that’s not gonna happen here
freepatriot says “so what’s the US Code number for obstruction Of justice???”
July 18th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Let’s start with 18 USC 1503 and let the lawyers here take it the rest of the way.
Ed*ard Teller 43:
Any pups out there remember “borking” having had the earlier definition? Am I getting too old to trust my memory on this stuff?
Your memory comports with mine. I guess that makes us both a ‘certain’ age.
1,207 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOES ON AND ON AND…
Can anyone here spell “impeachable offence”?
KEEP THE FAITH AND LET’S KICK THESE BASTARDS OUTTA OFFICE!!!
Imm
I’m with you. One of my first jobs as a government lawyer involved being responsible for Freedm of Information requests. There are all kinds of balancing tests for what an agency does and does not have to reveal.
In my private practice I often litigate Freedom of Information requests for mandamus when my client feels information ibeing withheld unlawfully.
One of the things that is really tough is making a showing about something when you don’t even know what it is or if it even exists.
All your arguments are hypothetical and in the alternative.
What’s most depressing (other than daily occurrences of impeachable offenses by members of this administration) is the fact that nothing will be done about it. The Dems should be screaming non-stop and putting impeachment resolutions up for a vote, advocating investigations on the talk-show circuit, and trying to save democracy. This will not happen. They will whine for a couple of days and then go back into their corner to cower. By after next Sunday much of America will neither know or care that Shrub has done this. (He has done so much else, so how much worse can this be?)
Norske
There have been so many impeachable offenses, I have lost count.
Who cares? W/O a congress willing to vote the bill of impeachment, it’s all castles in the air
freepatriot says “so what’s the US Code number for obstruction Of justice???”
July 18th, 2006 at 11:21 am
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Sonate
Yup
shorter immanentize at 64:
illegal acts can’t be made “legal” by security classification
if the original classification is found to violate the laws passed by congress, or fail to meet the standards established in the laws passed by congress, the original classification is moot, it never happened
law is a pretty absolute science, and if something is illegal, it can’t be covered or excused by other laws
once again, ask tricky dick how that all turned out for him
PS 60
Radical Bust Regime is too kind a name. My profession keeps me from using the language in line that I use out loud when no one is around.
Norske
That “who cares?” was a retorical “who cares”, I was not trying to get in you face. I just re-read it and thought it sounded a little gruff.
Correct me if I’m wrong here:
Yes, AbuG testified under oath that Bush is guilty of obstruction.
No, it doesn’t matter, because the GOP controls Congress and Bush is their God.
noen 65
my bad,
I meant John Dean of Nixon WH fame. Same guy as you.
Just wanted to distinguish it from anyone thinking it was Howard Dean who had made the remark.
Stephen Parrish, CPA says at 71:
freepatriot says:
’sides, this is a complicated case, and the lawyers need some smart people to lead the way
I’ve been the “fool crying in the wilderness” before (Rove’s SF-312 for instance)
I’m gonna rasie a stink, frame the debate a little
I got you thinking about it, didn’t I ???
punaise (48), I like Col. Turner’s essay overall but doubt his part 1 is apt to come to pass.
Rove’s plan is already being overrun by events, and there’s not a Snowball’s chance of it holding together for another 24 or more months — especially since his second and third points are so much more probable:
and
Nope, Operation Iraqi Freedom just doesn’t have two more years of viability at the rate things are exploding there (let alone everywhere else) now. I can’t see it.
The relevant snippet of AG testimony on video available at ThinkProgress.
Seems as if AG wanted to expand on the wonders of the urinary executive, but Specter cut him off after getting him to repeat that “the President” controls access to classified materials.
I’m among the many who expect nothing from Specter, but he ain’t the only game in town. I hope someone with nuts heard that.
For the sake of efficiency can the term ‘unilateral executive’ be contracted to
unilaxative?
John Dean is a former Nixon staffer, but I don’t recall he worked for Reagan.
I do find it odd that I agree with him ALL the time now, something I would not have predicted in 1976, thirty years ago.
Please check the dates (can’t do it myself right now) of Bork’s firing of Cox; I believe it was in the fall of 1973. I’m sure I was at college dorm, and I’m pretty sure it was chilly out. Also very scary — Dan Rather announcing it on CBS, with the BREAKING NEWS logo, and bad transmission from his standup on the WH lawn. Like it was yesterday, still gives me chills.
teddy:
The “Saturday night massacre” (October 20, 1973) was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon’s executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the forced resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the controversial and drawn-out Watergate scandal.
OMG I was there when that photo was taken.
HAHAHAHA Jane — that’s hilarious!
Jane 90:
The Jeopardy pic? Really?
raise your hand if you think our situation in Iraq will improve
lhp & Imman: This is quickie and probably not really responsive without being better organized and/or with some support, but as to ab initio v. voidable – I think that it goes to whether you view the exclusions from classifications listed in th Exec Order as being voluntarily assumed restraints by the Executive or recognition of existing limitations at law. And not each element of excluded info may be the same. But if you believe the classification is a voluntary assumption of restraint -then I think you can argue that objections to classifications on those grounds is process driven. HOwever, if you believe the category is a recognition of an area where, by and at law, there is no authority in the Executive to classify, then it is not process driven, it is void ab initio.
IMO – there is no foundation at law to support that the Executive has a legal right to keep illegal activity directed towards American Citizens classified or illegal violations of Acts of Congress secret. So classification of criminal behavior is, IMO, void ab initio.
Some other categories may not be, but I’d say criminal activity falls into the ab initio category. One thing that people are not really focusing on from Hamdan deals with the discussion of how does Bush get authority to set up military commissions. The court does not simply say – well, let’s see what Congress said, and if Congress didn’t say anything, he can do whatever he wants, but if Congress did do something (in this case, UCMJ and Geneva Conventions) there are constraints.
Rather, the COurt said there has to be a basis. That basis can be, if Congress hasn’t spoken, the common law evolution of the laws of war, but there has to be a basis for the authority before it can be exercised. I can think of no common law basis giving an elected official, even the Chief elected official, the right to engage in classification of illegal behavior. There is no way to make the claim, IMO, that the Exec has inherent authority or common law authority to violate the criminal laws. If there is no authority, the action is void ab initio. LIke me signing a law. IMO. And not to say that other aspects may not be process driven.
And Imman – I agree on the secrecy.
Sometime last year I thought a few senators like Hagel, and even maybe Warner, would go quietly into the President’s office and say, “Sir, it’s time to step down.” About the time the Abu Ghraib abuses came to light.
The hope that a few Republican leaders with integrity and a love for their country would do the right thing is long gone, in my opinion.
balls of brass are still as big as ever…..
“yeah, the law was broken, and the pres stopped the probe into the action, and we all know you’re not going to do anything about it”
lovely…..and since Specter has already drafted legislation to enable the Pres in the future to eavesdrop with impunity, this is a moot point, I suppose…..
yo, Mary:
void ab initio = moot
yes ???
Is that David Duchovny in the top photo? Sure looks like him.
Any WikiJockeys out there able to step in and correct the record WRT the original meaning of “Bork”? Neutralize the POV a bit…
Jenny at 98 — It is Duchovney. I just loved this shot and it’s odd “angle photo look up from below” framing.
Teddy @87
John Dean is a former Nixon staffer, but I don’t recall he worked for Reagan.
I do find it odd that I agree with him ALL the time now, something I would not have predicted in 1976, thirty years ago.
Hehe, imagine how I feel…I find myself agreeing with Pat freakin Buchanan pretty often nowadays! (but not his ramblings about China annexing Siberia lol, god only knows where he gets that idea from.)
But Mary
What makes me, the purported whistleblower, who may k=not have access to all the factors that went into a decision to classify something, the sole arbiter of whether it is properly classified?
How is it, that I get to decide? At least a judge gets to decide whether classification is voidable, because of Article 3. The president, and other officers authorized to classify documents, have authority pursuant to statute.
Where does my (the whistleblower’s)authority to decide they did it wrong and act on that decision come from?
CHS -
Yeah, it’s like a fish-eye lens effect, the distortion is eerie, almost a foreshadowing of X-Files to come… :)
(He’s got such a quirky, interesting persona. Especially loved him in a dress in Twin Peaks. Quite pretty, actually.) *g*
Freepatriot
void ab initio does not equal moot.
Moot means the controversy no longer exists or has been rendered hypothetical.
That’s why mock appeallate arguments involving hypothetical fact patterns are called “moot courts”.
Primoridal Ooze,
not a wiki jockey, but I take it you agree with my observations that the term pre-dated 1987, and referred to Bork as being a slut rather than a hero.
Where are the Deans now in that white house full of Borkborgs?
Perfect day for everything to go to hell here at work.Maybe I can catch up at lunch.
Abu sez Chimpy blocked the report by denying access?Me thinks that be not good form old sport. Where’s my pitchfork?
freepatriot – not exactly. Moot means that the court can’t really do anything about it (implicity “anymore”) For example, some of the early abortion cases were turned down as moot bc by the time the women got through appeals, they’d had their baby. If I was in a suit with my neighbor over whether or not they could chop down trees on our treeline – and the state comes in and exercises eminent domain on both our properties while we’re fighting – our fight becomes moot bc we lose the rights to the land b4 the court can decide the answer or fashion relief.
Imman – one other thing quick, then I have to work. I also agree with your take on signing statements in that the President can give some input onto how he wants discretion exercised, including allocation of enforcement efforts. So I think he could say – we won’t enforce that part vigorously. I don’t think, though, that he can go the next step and declare that he is reservingt the right to make aspirin usage legal. That seems, IMO, to be a big part of the distinction in how Bush has been using signing statements, but I’ve only seen 4.
So, why was Jane hanging out with Duchovney — or was she there with Alex???!!
Rumor mill alert!
the feeling is moot chew all
so what is the legal term for something that never existed ???
cuz if the basis for classification doesn’t meet the specific requirements of the laws of classification proceedures, the act of classification never happened
and in responce to the question “where does bush get his authority”, the answer is NOWHERE
“all rights not specifically designated to the federal government, nor denied the States, are reserved to the people and the States respectivly”
george only has the right to do things specifically enumerated by the Constitution of the United States
nuff said
punaise, 48: Yep. And Murtha had it right, months ago. In spite of some attempted swiftboating of Murtha, he still resonates with the American people. I just wish the Democrats would simply say: “we follow Murtha.” As Murtha said months ago: “The American people are way ahead of us on this.”
And in Iraq, three American soldiers died yesterday. Lest we forget.
Ghostman
TritoneSubstitution 40
me to me 41
oklahome kiddo 42
THAT’s what I mean! (my 36) But, collectively, you all say it better than I.
HOW CAN self-respecting Republican politicians remain passive?
How do they DARE sit there with all that collective potential power and ALLOW this to happen to OUR country, THEIR country? to the world?
Have they no shame?? no sense of responsibility or patriotic duty at all???
THEY HAVE all the the POWER they could possibly need.
WHAT are THEY going to do with it?!
Hit ‘em hard. Hit ‘em often. Do not let up.
Hit the politicians & the media outlets directly.
IS it O.K. with them that their own country is being taken over, and their jobs are being rendered useless? If so, WHY?
Who gave them permission to sell out their own country, its heritage and its future?
Letters to the Editor. Calls, letters, faxes, e-mails. Show up at candidate appearances and ask them in public. Talk to your neighbors.
Please excuse all the [SHOUTING]. Yes, I realize I’m preaching to the choir. Frankly, I’m not advocating shouting either, mostly because it doesn’t work particularly well. But it’s time these people were confronted – constantly, every chance you get. At this point, you needn’t shout to touch their guilt button. Increasingly, they’re seeing discomforting evidence all around them, in spite of the spin.
Why? One big reason is, the time has come when lots of registered Republicans are quietly (and not so quietly) very very upset, just like the rest of us. I wouldn’t particularly advocate spinning your wheels blaming your garden-variety neighborhood Repubs. for 2000 or 2004, but that doesn’t mean letting them off the hook. Get in their faces, with whatever method works for you/them and confront them about the FUTURE.
What does THEIR future, their kids’future, their parents’ future hold IF they idly sit by and do nothing. Will they be able to say they tried, or took a “pass”.
This wonderful FDL community offers loads of help. Use all its collective wisdom to hone your skills & do your research however you wish, and get out there.
apologiesforstreamofconsciousnessrant
I promise to go back to lurking now, & let cooler heads prevail ;->
Doesn’t this put Bush in the league of Coxsackers with Nixon?
Whoa, lhp-to-imm-to-Mary is WAY better’n Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance! Thanks, y’all, you’ve really snapped it into good sharp focus for me.
lhp at 102 — I think I am agreeing with you here, but let me test what you are saying: isn’t the whistleblower issue simply a classic Thoreau question of civil disobedience? The person who has access to classified material is constrained/deterred from revealing it by statutes that create criminal penalties for revealing the info. So, whenever they reveal such info. — regardless of whether they are doing so in good faith or even if they believe that the information was illegally classified to begin with, they are putting themselves into jeopardy in the first instance of being charged with divulging classified info. Then the fight is on as to whether it was classified and/or whether it was void for being calssified illegally. Is that your clients’ conundrum?
Thank Goodness for people who are still willing to take such personal risks for the good of the country.
Well Jane, you should have been there for the wild party daze. ;>)
Duchovney…I almost whacked that dude on set once…His own damn fault, too.
And keep talking, Gonzales…Those words will sound so nice coming through some headphones at the trial.
mary 107 part two. We are in complete agreement on the signing statement stuff.
lhp – if you know that there are illegal acts, then you are not deciding that they did “it” (classification) wrong. The determination you make is whether a law was broken – if so, cover up of that is not authorized by classification authority. It’s not a matter of
“my (the whistleblower’s)authority” it’s a matter of knowledge.
If you don’t know about illegal activity, then you are subject to the process issues. But if you know there are illegal activities, then you need no authority. You don’t have to have “authority” to declassify when the information could not, as a matter of law, be subject to classification bc it involved violations of American law.
It’s like saying that I, as an American citizen, need authorization to report a crime. I don’t. Prosecutors, police etc. may need authorizations to prosecute, arrest, etc. but I need no authorization to report or discuss crimes. You can’t legally impose on me a set of procedures that prevent me from reporting a crime either. There is no basis at law to do such a thing.
The question is not “how is the whistleblower authorized” when the activity is illegal – it would be “how is the classifier authorized?”
How are they? What could be the grounds for classifying illegal activity? Classification is what needs authority and if it is not there, the classification is void ab initio. If it is there in potentiality – but there is a misstep in application, then you have a process question. But where is the original source of ability to classify illegal behavior? I can’t think of it.
Wolcott is da man
http://jameswolcott.com/archiv….._hands.php
Ed*ard. I do not recall the earlier usage, but was not particularly politically aware at that time. I do know that he had a “reputation” before his SC hearings.
I was merely suggesting that if someone reading has a Wiki editing login and track record, that the Wikipedia “Bork” entry may be an appropriate target to bring back the “Neutral POV” that Wikipedia demands by providing the older meaning of the verb, rather than the current “conservative talking point” usage.
Sorry that I cannot confirm or deny your recollection, but I trust you, and at least one other reader has confirmed this usage.
imm at 115
Almost. Porter Goss’s NYTimes piece suggests, that even if the whistleblower acts in perfect good faith, and even if the whistleblower turn out to be absolutley correct, nonetheless, the whistleblower should still go to jail, because youcannot have individuals taking it upon themselves to decide (kinda, the ends don’t justify the means argument)
i have an additional concern, to wit, what if the whistleblower THINKS the document is illegaly classified, but is wrong. Good faith exposure, but now assets are comrpomised,secrets exposed, hell CIA agents outed.
How do you draw a bright line test between the good faith purported whistleblower who turns out to be wrong (because perhaps did not have all the facts needed to correctly assess–very common in the cloak and dagger world) and Scooter Libby who exposes a secret for an evil purpose?
The agent is just as outed either way
I find a lot of Wiki entries to be incomplete! The other day we were debating the idea that Chris Matthews was once a policeman. He was (as a matter of fact, he was a Capital Hill cop and his job, get this, was guarding the Pentagon Papers).
But evidentally the Wiki entry did not have any of this info. I trust it as much as I do Yahoo Maps.
tee-hee – Tom Tomorrow on Lamont/Lieberman:
http://www.workingforchange.co…..emid=21106
southern mafia
OT:
John Bolton…In the afterlife, if there is one, may you suffer an eternity of having the taste slapped out of your stupid mouth every time you open it.
>:-(
e, please leave the Southern out of it. “Texas” or “Crawford,” if you must. ;-}
WRT Wolcott article……….The headline we should have read…German PM decks US President for Inappropriate Touching: Just my Self Defense Training Merkel says
lhp 121 — that is why I say the risk is Thoreau-like. The penalty for civil disobedience sometimes is jail. That is also why I believe courts could consider material that was wrongly classified — even if classified for an illegal purpose — as something that should remain classified. That is, only if material was classified for an illegal purpose AND it was also improperly classified would its classification be void. It is sort of like post hoc police rationales for searches. even though their reason at the time might have been unconstitutional, if ANY reason that is constitutional can be thought up later, it is still a valid search. I suspect classification rationales will go that same route. As for the whistleblower who is wrong — they still did harm (which is punishable) but the did not act with malice (independently punishable). So I would say they would go to jail for the harm, but with a shorter sentence than Libby who caused harm with malice. (Remember, i am the defense guy!)
As for Porter Goss, he is an ass and a stupid man at that. You cannot punish people for being good citizens in this way. Otherwise, the adherence to the formalities of law would exceed the call to justice. Didn’t Weber say something like that?
Ding-a-ling-a-ling: time for our afternoon laff break!
Harris Retracts Donation To Fix House
So sweet of her to do this for us every day, doncha think?
Mary,
Activity is not classified, information is. Documents are.
One of the things that really struck me with this Admin and how they got rank and file gov’t professionals to stay in line is by never giving that person ALL the info on a given topic.
Or at least claiming they were holding out info. This way whenever a career person would raise an objection, the answer would be “if you only knew all the facts, you would understand why this is legal, necessary, a good thing –take your pick”
This causes self doubt in the mind of said employee, who then goes along. By the time the employee becomes completely convinced that there is something wrong, his own actions make him vulnerable to attack. Hence the many resignations.
[ed. by CHS: Saving you from your angry self here…]
—
but left feeling like the cartoon invading alien v. Bugs Bunny: “I am sooooo angry!”
Imm
I think you are right. Sucks though. Not a whistleblower friendly environment.
Yes, Porter Goss is a smuck. Actually, they are already ordering the drapes for his room in hell, cause redemption does not seem likely for him
heh heh…
Lieberman looks happiest when playing a “Fox News Democrat,”
Fox News Democrat, there’s one for the lexicon.
billmon’s upstairs… really!
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-party/
:-)
This is the same president that just made such an ass of himself at the G8 summit, right?
Joking about a pig when asked a serious question about the middle east…
Swearing and revealing his total ignorance of the situation while munching on a roll and talking with his mouth full to Tony Blair…
Totally inappropriate touching of a female world leader…
And he has the power to shut down a DOJ investigation?
Are the voters who elected him completely out of their minds?! This is the man you want to have a beer with? Why? So he can slip Rohypnol into your drink when you aren’t looking and he and his friends can take turns with you?
Freaking idiots.
NYT buries its lede (and its headline):
In Testimony, Gonzales Defends Detainee Strategy
Surprisingly, WaPo does not:
Gonzales: Bush Blocked Eavesdropping Probe
Argh – I have to get work done
Activity is not classified, information is. Documents are.
Yes.
IOW, Knowledge (that’s why I said it goes to knowledge, not authority).
The crucial difference between something void ab initio, and something voidable, is ability to cure. I don’t know of a way to cure classification that is classfication of illegal activity.
Now thinking this pretty definitely – is different than saying I would counsel a client to put their neck on the line. I’ll check back later.
My view is that it’s only a matter of time and everybody involved, even on the periphery of this is going to jail. There will be not enough pardens from whoever is the next president to parden them all. If Cheny and Bush were both impeached after the congress went to a Democratic Party majority, who is next in line?
One way to cure classification is through legal challenge, inlcuding a mandamus action to require declassification or a declaratory action to establish classification is void.
Just like with documents illegally held back from Freedom of Information requests.
It’s a pain in the ass, but it can be done. It’s done all the time
Adie…112
Am hearing what you say. Speaking just for myself I do send emails, letters, vote, sometimes step up to the fiduciary-plate, and so forth. Respectfully, I might say intuition, and from my reading what other commenters and most certainly the blog owners here are doing, I am far from unique.
And may I say Adie…I applaud your zest and piquancy! Truly. It’s very frustrating to know how many are not involved in what needs doing.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same things lhp.
I’m talking about cure from the legal cure standpoint of is something void ab initio or is it only voidable.
Judicial determinations re: declassification or classification are not cure in that context. For example, in your example of a contract given by someone under 18, there is a factor – passage of time – that can cure his inablity to contract. It is something that could or can happen based on independent facts and circumnstances, not related to a legal determinations by judges.
Now, if you have a question as to whether or not someone was 18 when they signed a contract – that issue can be resolved for reliance purposes (in the sense you are using “cure” I think) by a court determination that they were or were not 18 at the time.
So that situation has both the potential of legal cure and judicial “cure.”
But, if the issue was whether or not you could contract with someone to kill murder your spouse, then you have a contract not subject to legal cure in any manner, because of underlying criminality, and it is void ab initio.
It does not require a judicial “cure” and there can be no judicial “cure” – just a judicial reaction to the illegality.
So, if you were a govt employee and had your secretary call Wekill Spouses and make the arrangements, then stamped classified on the written phone messages and contract, your secretary is not violating any classification laws to make that info available – you had no authority to classify it bc the law does not allow classification of knowledge of illegal activity, and there is no conceivable cure for your lack of authority.
That’s my take at least.
Now, when you get into some of the other areas – embarassment, etc. – I think there may be a tougher analysis bc the law vis a vis authority may not be as clear as it is for knowledge of illegal activity.
But I have yet to see any argument, other than “if the President says it, it’s legal” (which has already been shot down in Hamdan and other places) that gives a legal basis (which Hamdan says is required for the exercise of authority in connection with establishing commissions) for authority to classify information concerning illegal behavior.
All that is the esoteric though and deals with criminal charges against the “revealor.” It doesn’t deal with being fired (do you have a property right in your job that prevents you from being fired for exercising your right to reveal information about illegal activities). It also doesn’t deal with the practical aspects of will someone show up at your door and charge you. IMO – this administration is peopled by those who will try to make the charges.
I do like unilateral better then unitary.
Unitary sounds like a church and I believe is meant to be confusing.
Unilateral on the other hand (wiki- one-side-ism) describes Bush and his rotten policies quite well.
One nation, divided by the President, for the President, and most disturbingly, under the President
Jenny from the blog wrt #96… John Warner is too busy anointing George Allen and contemplating his own legacy
Hello,
There have been many comments about whether something should / should not be classified. But the real question is, for what reason were the lawyers denied clearences?
There isn’t so much a question about whether the program should be classified or not. The question is:
How do you challenge a bogus denied security clearence to prevent an investigation from going forward?
Jenny at 122. If you see the wiki entry is incomplete, and you know “in fact” what is missing, then you can add that information to the wiki and, presto!, it is now a little more complete, and a little more immune to the next $$%^&& complaining about how incomplete it is. That’s kinda how it’s meant to work.
IMPEACHMENT NOW
Get these R’s out of office!
revdeb- John Dean was a Nixon staffer, not Reagan… but yeah, it doesn’t sound like something Howard Dean would say, huh. Or even Dizzy Dean… but you probably wouldn’t remember him.
Sorry to break the news to Prof, but Al Gore coined “unilateral instead of unitary” in a wonderful speech I saw him make last January at DAR Constitution Hall in D.C. in which he deplored the disintegration of the Bill of Rights under Bush.
Oklahoma kiddo at your 140
Oh heck, *sniffle* [translation: I think we’re in complete sympathy; I did wonder what Christy meant when she sent that ** to me many days back, but she’s such a special lady, I know she knows we all care and we’re all trying to do our best.]
Is it enuf? None of us knows. But we just HAVE to try. Deep thanks to you for tending to your corner of the world AND for contributing to this wonderful blog.
I do think there’s hope if we hang together, AND find the strength to reach out, with as much sympathy as we can muster, to those who have found themselves duped by this awful administration.
We personally thought Vietnam and Nixon era were frightening. Having gone thru that, and stayed ‘in tune’ to the times since, I honestly thing today’s administration is far far more dangerous than anything we’ve yet experienced.
The military-industrial complex has been melded to neocon theory, fed by greed, tweeked by the latest behavior research by advertising wizards, & put into hyperdrive by the current administration’s heavy handed control over the other branches of government and the mainstream media.
Far as I know, I’m not completely nuts daring to say all this. I don’t even know who Pachacutec is, but I respect him mightily, & I suspect he might find some areas of agreement.
What about it, Pach? eh? Wanna agree, in some part, with this old retired horse-trainer, ethology-trained, bird-watching, veggie gardener/retired stay-at-home mom?? (oh, & recovering politician, if school board counts, heh heh)
Silly stuff aside. Thanks OK kiddo. These are hard times, but we’re tough. tougher together, eh? ;->
(((peace)))
e at your 124
In TOTAL agreement with lotus at her 126.
It’s not “Southern”. It’s not “TX”.
FGS Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower are as TX as it gets!
& this comes from one w/ NEng/OH connections.
C’mon fella. Specificate!
I loved the scolding Specter gave Gonzolez for not turing in his homework on time, followed by a bitch slapping from Leahy for innapropriately giving Bush cover while the President craps on the US Constitution. The networks “America’s Next Dancing Wifeswapper Last Idol Standing”? Heck no, give me CSPAN anytime!
Alberto Gonzales was the one who nixed the DOJ attorney’s clearances. He’s the extra-legal criminal mastermind behind all of George Bush’s criminal activities. He’s probably the one who okayed the torture redefinition and the trashing of the Geneva Conventions. He’s probably the one who authorized the extra-legal surveillance program that skirts FISA’s absolute and final authority, as established constitutionally by Congress. And he’s probably the one who came up with the idea of Guantanamo.
Personally, I think Gonzales is criminially insane. And, just like Bush, he probably tortured small animals as a child…because it was fun. Sick. Sick. Sick.
me to me:
I agree with you completely. In spite of the fact that the reality about election fraud keeps bubbling up…RFK in Rolling Stone,RFK/Papentonio lawsuit, BlackBoxvoting and Brad Blog, Lewis Lapham in Harpers, Gregg Palast, the Conyers Report, Mark Crispin Miller, report from Brennan Center for Justice at NYU,recount demand over Busby/Billbray in Ca.,revelations about Hari Hurutsi’s tests in Fla., articles about Ken Blackwell,court convictions for phone jamming and revelations about connections to RNC etc. etc,… the public remains very much in disbelief and our own representatives in government are suprisingly disinterested in the probability that whatever efforts they make, to fundraise, get out the vote, make clear their positions,they simply will not be able to effect the outcome of an election if the fix is in. My question to you (and anyone else listening) is what do you think can be done to stop this theft of democracy before it is too late(i.e. Nov.). I know that somewhere there is an answer because we cannot stand by and allow this to happen again.
Isn’t this a crime? We’re so used to this kind of thing [scandal fatigue] that we’re likely to miss things we might can do something about. This one feels like a criminal act. If I did it, I think I’d end up being a defendant in a trial…
I am sorry if I am being redundant, but is this not one of those high crimes or misdeameanors noted in our laws on treason?
This somewhat reminds me of Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, where he told AG Elliot Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox; Richardson refused, so Nixon fired him and asked Deputy AG Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, so Nixon fired him and got Robert Bork to fire Cox. In Dubya’s case it was less dramatic — he stopped the investigation before it even got off the ground — but the effect is the same. The president, acting like a king rather than a president subject to checks upon his powers, squelches any inquiry into his own criminal activities.